The case where the judgment procedure in the original judgment is in contravention of law and cancelled;

If the non-party who does not have any authority to conduct the lawsuit is pretended to be the plaintiff (the minor who is the plaintiff who is 6 years of age at the time when the lawsuit was brought) and who is present at the date of pleading in the first instance of the case and conducts procedural acts, such as making a statement, and based on this, if the original judgment was pronounced, the original judgment shall not be exempted

Article 387 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da177 delivered on March 23, 1971 (Kakadd. 9561; Supreme Court Decision 19Nu civil232 delivered on October 11, 1971; Supreme Court Decision 71Da1805 delivered on October 11, 1971 (Supreme Court Decision 98Da848; Supreme Court Decision 19No34 delivered on October 34, 198; Decision 387(2)981 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court Msan Branch Court (76Gahap69)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale as of November 29, 1974, with respect to the share of 546/100 of the 500 shares in Seoyang-gu, Chungcheongnamyang-gun's Mayang-gun's Mayang-si's Mayang-si's Mayang-si'

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

The same shall apply to the order.

(1) Determination on whether the Defendant’s appeal is lawful

The plaintiff asserts that the appeal of this case by the defendant is unlawful as the Domination of the appeal period. Thus, since the plaintiff alleged that the appeal of this case by the defendant is unlawful as the Domination of the appeal period, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1 through 4, and Nos. 4-1 through 3, and since there is no dispute as to the authenticity of the part of this case bound by the records, the whole document No. 1, No. 4-1 through 3, each service report to the defendant, the decision of the court below, each statement of confirmation of the decision of the court below, and witness No. 1, 2, and 3 are gathered in the testimony of this case, if the plaintiff did not present all the arguments of the parties, the actual domicile of the defendant is within Japan, and the defendant's address is 199, the document No. 16, which became final and conclusive and delivered to the defendant No. 7, and the document No. 97, which did not interfere with the plaintiff No. 1, 65, without being present.

Therefore, unless the original judgment was served on the non-party 2 and its service was effective on the defendant, the period of appeal shall not proceed regardless of whether the defendant knew of the original judgment prior to the filing of the instant case, and since the original judgment does not become final and conclusive, the defendant's appeal on this case shall be lawful.

(2) Determination on whether the original judgment procedure was unlawful

If we look at ex officio, Eul evidence No. 7 without dispute in the formation, each statement in the gusheg, and the testimony of non-party 4 of the trial witness at the court below, if we gather the whole purport of the party's pleading, it can be recognized that the non-party 4, who is not authorized to conduct the lawsuit of this case, is present at the date of pleading in the case of this case, which is the plaintiff (the non-party 6 years old at the time when the lawsuit of this case was brought in) and conducts the litigation, such as gusheing, making a statement, etc., and the original judgment was pronounced based on this, and there is no other data to reverse this.

(3) Judgment on the merits

On September 4, 1974, the plaintiff asserted that the non-party 3, his representative, and the non-party 2 purchased the shares in the claim stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter referred to as the "land in this case") owned by the defendant from 655,200 won. Thus, the plaintiff's statement in Gap evidence No. 4, which seems consistent with this, did not recognize the authenticity of its establishment, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise. Rather, if the non-party 2, who cultivated the land in this case, was aware of the purport of the parties' arguments in the testimony of the non-party 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Eul evidence No. 2-1 to 4, and the non-party 1, 4, who had no dispute over its establishment, were aware of the fact that the non-party 2 was authorized to sell it to the plaintiff in the name of the defendant on the date of the argument in this case, even though he was not authorized to sell it.

(4) Conclusion

Therefore, since the original judgment is in violation of the law, the original judgment is revoked pursuant to Article 387 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the plaintiff's claim for objection against this case is groundless, and it is so decided as per Disposition with respect to the burden of litigation costs borne by the losing plaintiff

Judges Kim Ho-young (Presiding Judge) and Lee Tae-man's money